Overview of the Canadian Agriculture and Agri-Food System 2008
Table of Contents
Abstract
This 2008 report provides an economic overview of the Canadian agriculture and agri-food system.
It is meant to be a multi-purpose reference document to provide:
- an introduction to the agriculture and agri-food system;
- a snapshot of structural changes that are occurring throughout the system in response to various factors; and
- background data and information to inform public discussions on challenges and opportunities facing the Canadian agriculture and agri-food system.
The 2008 report begins with a special feature describing recent developments in global commodity markets when prices rose dramatically over the past year. It continues by reviewing each segment of the system, going upstream from consumers to food distribution, food, beverage and tobacco (FBT) processing, primary agriculture and input suppliers. It concludes with a review of government expenditures in support of agriculture including measures of international support. It introduces a new section this year that considers the natural resources available in Canada and the environmental impacts of agriculture on the environment.
Highlights
- The agriculture and agri-food system encompasses several industries including the farm input and service supplier industries, primary agriculture, food, beverage and tobacco (FBT) processing, wholesale and retail food industries and foodservice. It continues to play an important role in the federal and provincial economies, making a significant contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employment. It directly provided one in eight jobs and accounted for 8% of total GDP in 2006.
- Export opportunities are critical for the growth of most Canadian agriculture and agri-food industries. In 2007, Canada was the fourth-largest exporter and sixth-largest importer of agriculture and agrifood products in the world, with exports and imports valued at $32 billion and $26 billion, respectively.
- The agriculture and agri-food system is becoming more internationally focussed with Canada's share of world agriculture and agri-food trade increasing over the past 15 years in response to trade liberalization and growing world economies. The composition of the agriculture and agri-food system's trade has also changed with increasing exports of consumer-oriented goods that meet changing international demands.
- Changing consumer demands are influencing changes throughout the whole agriculture and agrifood system. Consumers are demanding more variety, more convenience, more environmentallyfriendly and healthier food choices, accompanied by proper assurances of quality and safety.
- Canadians enjoy some of the lowest food costs in the world, with food from stores accounting for only 10% of personal household expenditures in recent years.
- In response to challenges and changing market conditions, the agriculture and agri-food sector has gone through considerable transformation with a continued trend towards fewer, larger farms and firms and increased concentration. There is also an increasing number of farms and firms diversifying production, growing organic products and adopting environmentally-friendly production methods.
- The agriculture and agri-food sector is also continuously developing innovative products such as bioproducts and functional foods and nutraceutical (FFN) products that provide excellent market opportunities to diversify and meet challenges in a competitive global market.
- The prosperity of the sector depends on its ability to be productive and competitive. Although Canada has become more competitive in the net export of various agricultural and agri-food products, it has lost competitiveness in several sectors due to rising costs.
- Innovation is a key factor in determining competitiveness, with public and private spending on research and development ( R&D) as a major input to innovation. Public R&D spending in the agriculture and agri-food sector has been increasing over time. However, private R&D spending as a share of GDP in the food manufacturing industry is significantly lower than that of total manufacturing.
- While primary agriculture accounts for a small share of the total economy, it is at the heart of the agriculture and agri-food system. Any changes in commodity markets can therefore have impacts on the performance of primary agriculture and the whole supply chain.
- Canadian farms differ by size, scale, farm type and typology, while farm operators differ by management skills and business strategies. Therefore differences in performance between farms can be explained by this diversity.
- Farm income varies by farm size, type, region and typology. On average, high performance farms tend to have better cost control, which along with support from government policies and programs help them manage through income variability. Some farm families rely more on off-farm income to help them manage.
- The food, beverage and tobacco (FBT) processing sector is a group of industries that transforms primary production and is the second most important manufacturing sector in Canada.
- FBT processing experienced growth in 2007 leading to higher GDP, but higher input costs are squeezing margins and forcing the sector to adjust business strategies.
- Input suppliers and service providers also perform important functions in the agriculture and agrifood system. In 2007, producers spent over $38 billion in operating expenses, with commercial feed constituting the largest part of expenses. In addition to already large input expenses, recent increases in the costs of fuel, fertilizer and pesticides are putting added pressure on farmers. Recent increases in feed prices have added to the financial pressures for livestock farms in particular.
- Total government (federal and provincial) support to the agriculture and agri-food sector rose to a record high level in 2007-2008 at an estimated value of $8.1 billion or just under 40% of total sector GDP.
- Program payments continue to account for the largest portion of both federal and provincial government expenditures in support of the sector in 2006-2007, followed by spending on research and inspection.
- Government support to the sector varies across provinces. On the basis of government support as a percentage of agriculture and agri-food GDP, farmers in Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador received the most support.
- Agricultural policies in Canada and other countries have evolved over time. Some countries have made major reforms to their agricultural policies, leading to reductions in levels of support and modifications to the types of support provided.
- Canada's Producer Support Estimate (PSE) for all commodities was estimated at 18% in 2007 compared to 10% for the U.S. and 26% for the EU(27). In 2007, the percent PSE declined for the main OECD countries mainly because of increased farm gross receipts and reduced market price support due to higher world prices in all countries but the U.S.
Executive Summary
The agriculture and agri-food system continues to be a complex and highly integrated group of industries that contributes significantly to the Canadian economy.
The agriculture and agri-food system continues to play a significant role in the Canadian economy, particularly when the whole supply chain is considered. The agriculture and agri-food system contributed $87.9 billion (chained 1997 dollars) to the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or 8% of the Canadian economy and employed 2.1 million Canadians in 2006. This complex, integrated production and distribution system includes input and service suppliers, primary agriculture producers, food, beverage and tobacco (FBT) processors, food retailers and wholesalers and foodservice providers.
The importance of the agriculture and agri-food sector varies across provinces, with food processing being more important in Eastern Canada, and primary agriculture being more important on the Prairies.
Figure 1
This is a vertical bar graph entitled: "The Agriculture and Agri-food System's Contribution to GDP and Employment from 2006".
Source: Statistics Canada and AAFC Calculations
This vertical bar graph illustrates two separate results. The first bar represents the agriculture sector's total percentage contributed to Canada's Gross Domestic Product (also known as GDP). The second bar represents the agriculture sector's percentage of Canada's total employed population.
The vertical (y) axis measures percentages of total from bottom to top; from zero percent to 14 percent.
The horizontal (x) axis has two separate bars moving from left to right. The first bar measures the agriculture sector's percentage of Canada's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The second bar measures the agriculture sector's percentage of Canada's total employed population.
The agriculture sector is divided into five categories: Foodservice, Food Retail/Wholesale, Food, Beverage and Tobacco Processing (also known as FBT), Primary Agriculture, and Input & Service Suppliers.
The results for the two bar graphs are as follows:
Gross Domestic Product:
The agriculture and agri-food system contributed 87.9 billion dollars (chained 1997 dollars) to Canada's GDP for a total of 8 percent of the GDP. Results by category are as follows: Food Service 1.5 percent, Food Retail/Wholesale 2.6 percent, FBT 2 percent, Primary Agriculture 1.3 percent, and Input & Service Supplier 0.7 percent.
Employment:
The agriculture and agri-food system employed 2.1 million Canadians in 2006 for a total of 12.8 percent of employed Canadians. Results by category are as follows: Food Service 5.0 percent, Food Retail/Wholesale 3.7 percent, FBT 1.7 percent, Primary Agriculture 1.8 percent, and Input & Service Supplier 0.4 percent.
End of description for Figure 1. Returning to text.
The Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector depends on trade
The agriculture and agri-food system has been growing at an average rate of 2.4% per year over the past decade with most of the growth in GDP occurring in FBT processing, food retail/wholesale and foodservice.
Growth in the system has been driven partly by export growth, and in particular, by exports of consumer- oriented products. In 2007, total sector export sales reached $32 billion, with just under 50% representing consumer-oriented products.
Canada continued to be the world's fourth largest agriculture and agri-food exporter in 2007 after Brazil, the U.S. and the EU with 5.6% of total world exports if EU countries are counted as a trade bloc, and 3.1% if they are treated separately.
Figure 2
This is an area chart entitled: "Canadian Agriculture and Agri-food - Bulk, Intermediate and Consumer Oriented (also known as BICO) 1990 to 2007"
Source: Statistics Canada and AAFC Calculations
This area chart illustrates the trend in Canadian agricultural exports from 1990 to 2007. It examines three agricultural export sectors: Consumer-Oriented, Intermediate, and Bulk.
The vertical (y) axis is total dollars; moving from bottom to top, beginning at 0 and ending at 35 billion dollars.
The horizontal (x) axis is a measurement of time in years; moving from left to right, beginning in 1990 and ending in 2007.
The individual results for each sector are as follows:
The Bulk export sales in 1990 were approximately 5 billion dollars. Overall from 1990 to 2007 there was a small increase in Bulk export sales. In 2007 Bulk export sales were approximately 9 billion dollars.
The Intermediate export sales in 1990 were approximately 2.5 billion dollars. Overall from 1990 to 2007 there was a steady increase in Intermediate export sales. In 2007 Intermediate export sales were approximately 8 billion dollars.
The Consumer-Oriented export sales in 1990 were approximately 3 billion dollars. Overall from 1990 to 2007 there was a large increase in Consumer-Oriented exports. In 2007 Consumer-Oriented export sales were approximately 15 billion dollars.
End of description for Figure 2. Returning to text.
Overall, Canada's agricultural producers are much more export oriented than those in the U.S and the EU.
In 2006, for example, about 45% of Canada's agricultural production was exported compared to 18% in the U.S. and 7% in the EU. Grains and oilseeds and red meats were particularly export oriented.
Figure 3
This is a vertical bar graph entitled: "Share of Farm Market Receipts from Export Sales for Canada, the United States (also known as the U.S.) and the European Union (also known as the EU) 1999 to 2006".
Special note for the graph: Export dependency is calculated as a value of production weighted average of the export dependencies of the following commodities: wheat, coarse grains, oilseeds, beef, pork, dairy, and poultry. These commodities cover about 50 percent of the EU's total farm production, 60 percent of the U.S.'s total of the farm production, and 75 percent of Canada's total farm production.
Source: Statistics Canada, OECD and AAFC Calculations
This vertical bar graph compares the share of farm market receipts from export sales (expressed as a percentage of total farm production market sales) between: Canada, the US, and the EU.
The vertical (y) axis is expressed in percentage of market receipts; moving from bottom to top, from zero percent to 50 percent.
The horizontal (x) axis represents four consecutive fiscal periods; moving from left to right, beginning with 1999 to 2000; and ending with 2005 to 2006.
The approximate percentage shares for the four periods are as follows:
1999 to 2000:
Canada 42 percent, U.S. 17 percent, EU 9.5 percent
2001 to 2002:
Canada 44 percent, U.S. 17 percent, EU 8 percent
2003 to 2004:
Canada 40 percent, U.S. 17 percent, EU 8 percent
2005 to 2006:
Canada 45 percent, U.S. 18 percent, EU 7 percent
End of description for Figure 3. Returning to text.
A rise in global commodity prices in 2007 and early 2008 has had an impact on the performance of the agriculture and agri-food system.
Global commodity prices increased in 2007 and early 2008 as a result of changes in supply and demand conditions around the world. The World Food Price Index roughly doubled between 2002 and 2008. During the first half of 2008 in particular, world food prices rose 32% over 2007 prices.
Figure 4
This is a line graph entitled: "World Food Price Index 1980 to 2008"
Source: International Monetary Fund
Special note for graph: 2008 data reflects prices as of June 2008.
The vertical (y) axis is the World Food Price Index; moving from bottom to top, from zero to 180. The base year is 2005 and equals 100.
The horizontal (x) axis measures years; moving from left to right, starting at 1980 and ending at 2008 (the 2008 data entry reflect prices as of June 2008).
The results for this graph are as follows:
In 1980 the World Price Index was approximately 125. Over the next six years the World Price Index decreased to approximately 98 in 1986. Between the years 1986 and 1996 the World Price Index experienced small fluctuations. In 1996 the World Price Index was approximately 112 and sharply declined to 80 in 1999. From 1999 to 2008, the World Price Index rose steadily. The World Price Index was approximately 170 in 2008.
End of description for Figure 4. Returning to text.
Changing supply and demand conditions around the world has led to higher commodity prices.
A rising middle income class in emerging economies contributed to increased demand for higher- value agricultural commodities such as meat and dairy products.
This, combined with droughts in Australia and poor weather in Europe, tightened supplies and led to the lowest stock-to-use ratios for grains and oilseeds in several years. Stock-to-use ratios for wheat were 25% in 2007, down from 44% in 1999. Stock-to-use ratios for coarse grains fell to 20% in 2007 from 33% in 1999. At the same time, many countries reduced their public stock holdings of cereals over this period.
Figure 5
This is a multiple line graph entitled: "Stock to Use Ratios 1995 to 2007"
Source: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
This multiple line graph compares the stock-to-use ratio of commodities over time. The commodities that are measured are: wheat, coarse grains, oilseeds, and rice.
The vertical (y) axis indicates the stock-to-use ratio as a percentage; moving from bottom to top from zero percent to 50 percent.
The horizontal (x) axis measures years; moving from left to right, starting at 1995 and ending at 2007.
The results for this graph are as follows:
Stock-to-use ratio for wheat: Beginning in 1995 stock-to-use ratio for wheat was 34 percent and rose to approximately 44 percent by 1999. Over the next four years, the ratio decreased to a new level of 28 percent in 2003. The ratio rose and fell between the years 2003 and 2007 and in 2007 finished at 25 percent.
Stock-to-use ratio for coarse grains: Beginning in 1995 stock-to-use ratio for coarse grains was 29 percent and rose to approximately 33 percent by 1999. Over the next five years, the ratio decreased to a new level of 22 percent in 2003. The ratio rose and fell between the years 2003 and 2007 and in 2007 finished at 20 percent.
Stock-to-use ratio for oilseeds: Beginning in 1995 stock-to-use ratio for oilseeds was 10 percent and rose to approximately 13 percent by 1998. The oilseed ratio experienced slight fluctuations in levels over the next eight years and in 2007 the stock-to-use ratio for oilseed dropped to 8 percent.
Stock-to-use ratio for rice: Beginning in 1995 stock-to-use ratio for wheat was 35 percent and rose to approximately 40 percent by 1999. Over the next eight years, the ratio experienced a steady decrease to 18 percent in 2007.
End of description for Figure 5. Returning to text.
At the same time, rising energy consumption has contributed to higher crude oil prices which have raised input costs.
Crude oil prices climbed from $US25 per barrel in 2002 to $US72 per barrel in 2007 and reached over $US140 per barrel in mid 2008 before falling back.
Higher energy prices enter directly into farmers' and food manufacturers' costs of production, increase transportation costs and indirectly affect prices of other inputs.
Figure 6
This is a line graph entitled: "World Crude Oil Prices 2002 to 2007"
Source: International Monetary Fund and AAFC Calculations
The vertical (y) axis measures the price for crude oil per barrel, expressed in U.S dollars; moving from bottom to top, from zero to 80 dollars.
The horizontal (x) axis measures years; moving from left to right, starting at 2002 and ending at 2007.
Crude oil prices climbed from 25 US dollars per barrel in 2002 to 72 US dollars per barrel in 2007 and reached over 140 US dollars per barrel in mid 2008 before falling back. Individual year results for crude oil prices per barrel are as follows:
2002: 25 dollars, 2003: 29 dollars, 2004: 38 dollars, 2005: 54 dollars, 2006: 65 dollars, 2007: 72 dollars
End of description for Figure 6. Returning to text.
Higher energy and agricultural commodity prices have affected sector performance.
Higher crude oil prices have also contributed to higher input costs, such as farm expenses on machinery fuel and fertilizer, as well as raising the costs of transporting food products around the world.
Figure 7
This is a line graph entitled: "Farm Expenses on Machinery Fuel 1980 to 2007"
Source: Statistics Canada
The vertical (y) axis measures Farm Expenses on Machinery Fuels, expressed in billions of dollars; moving from bottom to top, from zero to 2.5 billion dollars.
The horizontal (x) axis measures years; moving from left to right, starting at 1980 and ending at 2007.
The approximate results for this graph are as follows:
Beginning in 1980 farm expenses on machinery fuel was 0.7 billion dollars. By 1995 expenses had risen to 1.3 billions of dollars. From 1995 to 2001, farms expenses on machinery gradually rose to 1.5 billion dollars. There was a small decrease in expenses in 2002 to 1.4 billion dollars, but a steep increase to 2.3 billion dollars by 2007. The overall trend therefore has been a steady increase in farms expenses on machinery fuel from 1980 to 2007.
End of description for Figure 7. Returning to text.
In Canada, rising commodity prices have had a limited impact on food price inflation, as the appreciation of the Canadian dollar since 2003 partially moderated food price increases in Canada.
The Canadian dollar appreciation also had other impacts on the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector. This included dampening export demand, lowering farm and food market export revenues and increasing the relative labour cost in Canada and the U.S. It also lowered the cost of imported inputs, such as machinery and equipment, thereby encouraging investment in the sector.
Figure 8
This is a multiple line graph entitled: "World and Canadian Food Price Indices and U.S./Canada Exchange Rate 2000 to 2007"
Source: Bank of Canada, Statistics Canada, International Monetary Fund
This multiple line graph has two vertical axes and one shared horizontal axis.
The left vertical (y) axis is a measurement of the Food Price Index; moving bottom to top, beginning at 80 and ending at 200. The base year for the index was 2002 with a food price index of 200. It measures Canada and the world's food price index.
The horizontal (x) axis measures years; moving from left to right, beginning in 2000 and ending in 2007.
The right vertical (y) axis is a measurement of the US/Canada exchange rate; moving bottom to top, beginning at 0.50 dollars and ending at 0.95 dollars. This line graph measures the exchange rate beginning in 2000 and ending in 2007.
Using the left vertical (y) axis, the trends in food prices for Canada and the world:
Beginning in 2000, Canada's food price index was approximately 94. Over the next seven years Canada's food prices gradually increased. Canada's food price index was approximately 110 in 2007.
Beginning in 2000, the world's food price index was approximately 99. Over the next seven years, world food prices significantly increased. The world food price index was approximately 150 in 2007.
Using the right vertical (y) axis, the trend for the US/Canada exchange rate:
Beginning in 2000, the US/Canada exchange rate was 0.67 dollars. For the next two years the exchange rate decreased to 0.65 dollars in 2002. From 2002 to 2007 the exchange rate increased steadily. The exchange rate was 0.92 dollars in 2007.
End of description for Figure 8. Returning to text.
Canadian consumers continued to spend a smaller share of their budgets on food in 2007.
In 2007, Canadians spent $150 billion on food from stores and from restaurants. This represented only 13% of their total personal spending, down from 17% in 1981. This occurred as real per capita personal disposable income increased in 2007. While spending on food from stores was down to under 10% of total spending, the share allocated to restaurant meals continued to become more important.
Figure 9
This is an area chart entitled: "Average Personal Expenditures on Food as a Share of Total Personal Expenditures 1981 to 2007"
Source: Statistics Canada and AAFC Calculations
This area chart has two vertical axes and one shared horizontal axis.
The left vertical (y) axis is a measurement of Total Personal Expenditures expressed as a percentage; moving bottom to top, beginning at zero percent and ending at 30 percent. Two categories of personal expenditures are measured on this graph; food purchased from restaurants, and food purchased from stores.
The horizontal (x) axis is a measurement of time expressed in years; moving from left to right, beginning in 1981 and ending in 2007.
The right vertical (y) axis is a measurement average personal expenditures as expressed in chained 2002 dollars per person; moving from bottom to top, beginning at 0 thousand dollars and ending at 3.5 thousand dollars.
Using the left vertical (y) axis, the percentage of food purchased from stores and from restaurants as expressed as a percentage of total personal expenditures:
In 1981 food purchased from stores and restaurants represented approximately 17 percent of total personal expenditures. From 1981 to 2007, food purchased from stores and restaurants decreased steadily. In 2007, food purchased from stores and restaurants represented approximately 13 percent of total personal expenditures.
Using the right vertical (y) axis, average personal expenditure on food expressed in chained 2002 dollars per person:
In 1981 average personal expenditures on food was approximately 2.7 thousand dollars. From 1981 to 2007 average personal expenditure on food increased. In 2007 the average personal expenditure on food was approximately 3.2 thousand dollars.
End of description for Figure 9. Returning to text.
The lowest income households in Canada, however, allocated larger shares of spending on food (16% in 2006) compared to the average.
While Canadian food prices increased only moderately in the wake of global commodity price inflation, low income Canadians are affected since they spend more on food.
Figure 10
This is a vertical bar graph entitled: "Share of Household food Expenditures by Income Quintile for 2006"
Source: Statistics Canada and AAFC Calculations
Note: Households are ranked in ascending order by total household income and are then divided into five equal groups. The first quintile is the lowest 20 percent of household income and the fifth quintile is the highest 20 percent of household income.
The vertical (y) axis measures the percentage of household income spent on food expenditures; moving from bottom to top, beginning at zero percent, and ending at 20 percent.
The horizontal (x) axis represents total household incomes as expressed in ascending quintiles; moving from left to right, beginning with the first quintile and ending at the fifth quintile.
Results for percentage of household income spent on food expenditures per quintile:
First quintile: 15.6 percent, Second quintile: 13.9 percent, Third quintile: 11.8 percent, Fourth quintile: 10.2 percent, Fifth quintile: 8 percent
End of description for Figure 10. Returning to text.
Compared to many other countries, Canadians spend a relatively small share on food from stores (10%), as do citizens in the U.S. and the UK.
This compares with emerging countries, where large portions of the population live on less than US$1 per day, and allocate well over 60% of total household expenditures on food.
Global commodity price increases in 2008 have hit citizens in these countries particularly hard, leading to calls for greater food aid to those regions.
Figure 11
This is a vertical bar graph entitled: "Household Expenditures Share of Food in Developing Countries, Living on Less than one US dollar per day 2006"
Source: International Food Policy Research Institute (FPRI)
The vertical (y) axis measures the percentage of household expenditures on share of food; moving from bottom to top, beginning at zero percent and ending at 80 percent.
The horizontal (x) axis represents five developing countries; moving from left to right, beginning with Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, Central Asia, East Asia and ending with Latin America.
The percentage of household income spent on food is as follows:
Sub-Saharan Africa: 73.3 percent, South Asia: 61.4 percent, Central Asia: 71.8 percent, East Asia: 59.8 percent, Latin America: 56.1 percent
End of description for Figure 11. Returning to text.
The food, beverage and tobacco (FBT) processing sector has also been affected by international market developments in 2007 and 2008.
FBT processing is the second-largest manufacturing sector in Canada after transportation equipment. The FBT industry is highly export oriented with some sub-sectors more dependent on trade than others. Therefore, it has been affected by the appreciated exchange rate. Nevertheless, FBT GDP was up 2.2% in 2007.
Figure 12
This is a horizontal bar graph entitled: "Food Beverage and Tobacco (FBT) Processing Export Intensities by Sub-industry 2007"
Source: Statistics Canada and AAFC Calculations
The vertical (y) axis is divided into eleven sub industries of the Food Beverage and Tobacco (FBT) Processing Exports, moving from bottom to top.
The horizontal (x) axis measures the percentage shipped of each of these eleven sub categories; moving from left to right, beginning at zero percent and ending at 80 percent.
Beginning at the bottom of the graph, the percentage shipped of each of FBT sub industries:
Dairy: 3.3 percent, Animal Food: 8.5 percent, Beverages: 9.6 percent, Tobacco: 17.5 percent, Other Food: 19.6 percent, Bakeries and Tortilla: 19.8 percent, Meat: 21.5 percent, Fruit, Vegetable Preserving and Specialty Food: 31.9 percent, Sugar and Confectionary: 32.5 percent, Grain and Oilseed: 45.4 percent, Seafood: 70.2 percent
End of description for Figure 12. Returning to text.
Profit margins were higher in 2007 but the gap between FBT and total manufacturing narrowed.
2008 is seeing higher raw material, labour, transportation and energy costs. This, combined with an appreciated exchange rate, is creating competitive pressures that are leading the industry to further rationalize and restructure.
Figure 13
This is a vertical bar graph entitled: "Profit Margin Ratio in Food and Total Manufacturing 1999 to 2007"
Source: Statistics Canada
Note: Profit margin ratio at the industry level is calculated as operating profits divided by total operating revenues. Operating profit is the net result of the principal business activities of a firm. It is calculated before taking into account interest expense, investment income, non-recurring losses from the write-down of assets, gains or losses realized on the disposal of assets, and income tax expense. This ratio indicates management's ability to generate earnings from the principal business activities of a firm.
The graph compares the profit margin ratio of the Food and Soft Drink Processing sector and for Total Manufacturing.
The vertical (y) axis measures the profit margin ratio as a percentage of revenue; moving from bottom to top, beginning at zero percent and ending at 10 percent.
The horizontal (x) axis is a measurement of time; moving from left to right, beginning in 1999 and ending in 2007.
The results of the Profit Margin Ratio comparisons:
1999: Food and Soft Drink Processing 5 percent, Total Manufacturing 7.8 percent
2000: Food and Soft Drink Processing 4.6 percent, Total Manufacturing 8 percent
2001: Food and Soft Drink Processing 4.5 percent, Total Manufacturing 5.5 percent
2002: Food and Soft Drink Processing 4.7 percent, Total Manufacturing 5.8 percent
2003: Food and Soft Drink Processing 4.4 percent, Total Manufacturing 5 percent
2004: Food and Soft Drink Processing 5.3 percent, Total Manufacturing 6.4 percent
2005: Food and Soft Drink Processing 5 percent, Total Manufacturing 6.1 percent
2006: Food and Soft Drink Processing 5.2 percent, Total Manufacturing 6.4 percent
2007: Food and Soft Drink Processing 6.1 percent, Total Manufacturing 6.6 percent
End of description for Figure 13. Returning to text.
Lower costs for imported machinery and equipment, because of an appreciated exchange rate, have meant that food manufacturers have been able to invest in new capital stock particularly machinery and equipment. This may lead to productivity improvements and enhanced competitiveness in the future.
Figure 14
This is a multiple line graph entitled: "Capital Stock, Canadian Food Processing 1961 to 2007"
Source: Statistics Canada
This graph measures capital stock costs for: Building Construction, and Machinery and Equipment.
The vertical (y) axis is a measurement of stock costs, expressed 2002 billion of dollars; moving from bottom to top, zero billion to 9 billion dollars.
The horizontal (x) axis measures years; moving from left to right, beginning in 1961 and ending in 2007.
Building Construction Stock:
In 1961, Building Construction costs were 2 billion dollars. Costs increased to approximately 3.5 billion dollars in 1986. Building Construction costs experienced mild fluctuations over the next 11 years. In 2006 Building Construction costs were approximately 2.9 billion dollars.
Machinery and Equipment Stock:
In 1961, Machinery and Equipment costs were approximately 2.4 billion dollars. Costs increased to approximately 4.2 billion dollars in 1986. Unlike Building Construction costs, Machinery and Equipment costs increased significantly over the next 11 years. In 2006 Machinery and Equipment costs were approximately 6.8 billion dollars.
End of description for Figure 14. Returning to text.
The primary agriculture sector continues to adjust to international market forces.
In the primary agriculture sector, there is an increasing number of large farms that dominate production. Million dollar farms account for only 2.5% of farms, but account for 40% of revenues, and their importance has increased over time. Farms have consolidated in order to be able to benefit from economies of scale and improvements in productivity and new technologies in order to compete.
Figure 15
This is a vertical bar graph entitled: "Distribution of Gross Farm Receipts by Revenue Class (2005 Constant dollars) 1986 to 2006"
Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Agriculture
This vertical bar graph that measures the distribution of farms receipts by five revenue class (or farm size).
The vertical (y) axis measures the share of Gross Farm Receipts as a percentage for each category; moving from bottom to top, zero percent to 100 percent.
The horizontal (x) axis measures time as expressed by five fiscal periods; moving from left to right: 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001, and 2006.
The results of the distribution of gross farm receipts by revenue class:
1986:
Revenues of less than 250, 000 dollars: 47 percent
Revenues between 250, 000 dollars and 499, 999 dollars: 22 percent
Revenues of 500,000 dollars and 999,999 dollars: 13 percent
Revenues of 1,000,000 dollars and 4,999,999 dollars: 13 percent
Revenues of 5,000,000 dollars or more: 3 percent
1991
Revenues of less than 250, 000 dollars: 45 percent
Revenues between 250, 000 dollars and 499, 999 dollars: 22 percent
Revenues of 500,000 dollars and 999,999 dollars: 14 percent
Revenues of 1,000,000 dollars and 4,999,999 dollars: 15 percent
Revenues of 5,000,000 dollars or more: 5 percent
1996
Revenues of less than 250, 000 dollars: 37 percent
Revenues between 250, 000 dollars and 499, 999 dollars: 21 percent
Revenues of 500,000 dollars and 999,999 dollars: 14 percent
Revenues of 1,000,000 dollars and 4,999,999 dollars: 16 percent
Revenues of 5,000,000 dollars or more: 11 percent
For 2001
Revenues of less than 250, 000 dollars: 29 percent
Revenues between 250, 000 dollars and 499, 999 dollars: 19 percent
Revenues of 500,000 dollars and 999,999 dollars: 16 percent
Revenues of 1,000,000 dollars and 4,999,999 dollars: 20 percent
Revenues of 5,000,000 dollars or more: 16 percent
For 2006
Revenues of less than 250, 000 dollars: 25 percent
Revenues between 250, 000 dollars and 499, 999 dollars: 19 percent
Revenues of 500,000 dollars and 999,999 dollars: 16 percent
Revenues of 1,000,000 dollars and 4,999,999 dollars: 24 percent
Revenues of 5,000,000 dollars or more: 16 percent
End of description for Figure 15. Returning to text.
Farming remains a highly-diverse sector. Some highly-profitable farms are small, business focussed farms, while less profitable farms are lifestyle farms that rely largely on off-farm income.
In 2007 and 2008, as commodity prices have risen, farm market receipts and net farm income for grain and oilseed farms have also increased. Livestock farms, on the other hand, which have experienced higher feed costs and lower prices due to high liquidation of herds, are experiencing lower receipts and net farm income.
Figure 16
This is a horizontal bar graph entitled: "Farm Market Receipts by Commodity, Relative to a Five-Year Average 2007"
Source: Statistics Canada
The vertical (y) axis is divided into nine agricultural commodities, moving bottom to top. The nine agricultural commodities are: hogs, cattle and calves, fruit and vegetable, other, poultry and eggs, dairy, sheep and lambs, grains, and oilseeds.
The horizontal (x) axis measures the percentage change (both negative and positive changes) in receipts for each of these commodities, based on a five year average in 2007. Measurements on the x axis moves in two directions; moving from right to left, beginning at zero percent and ending at negative ten percent; and then moving from left to right, beginning at zero percent and ending at 70 percent.
The approximate percentage change results for each agricultural commodity are as follows:
Hogs: negative 9.5 percent, Cattle and calves: 3.1 percent, Fruit and vegetable: 6.4 percent, Other commodities: 6.7 percent, Poultry and eggs: 11.1 percent, Dairy: 14 percent, Sheep and lambs: 14.6 percent, Grains: 40 percent, Oilseeds: 62 percent
End of description for Figure 16. Returning to text.
Program payments are expected to be down in 2008 from previous years as market income has grown.
Net market income per farm is expected to increase from $14,300 to $20,877 for farms between 2007 and 2008.
Program payments per farm are expected to fall from $21,013 to $20,144 for farms between 2007 and 2008.
Figure 17
This is a vertical bar graph entitled: "Average Net Market Income and Program Payments 2003 to 2008"
Note: 2008 figures are forecasts.
Source: Statistics Canada and AAFC Calculations
The vertical bars measure the total of Net Market Income and Program Payments for a given year.
The vertical (y) axis is income expressed in thousands of dollars; moving from bottom to top, from 0 thousand to 45 thousand dollars.
The horizontal (x) axis is a measurement of time, in years; moving from left to right, beginning with 2003 and ending with 2008.
Approximate results for the graph are as follows:
2003: Net market income 7 thousand dollars, Program Payments 18.5 thousand dollars
2004: Net market income 8.9 thousand dollars, Program Payments 19.8 thousand dollars
2005: Net market income 7.3 thousand dollars, Program Payments 22.7 thousand dollars
2006: Net market income 6.6 thousand dollars, Program Payments 22.6 thousand dollars
2007: Net market income 14.3 thousand dollars, Program Payments 21 thousand dollars
2008 (projected figure): Net market income 21 thousand dollars, Program Payments 20 thousand dollars
End of description for Figure 17. Returning to text.
Net value-added in agriculture, which measures the economic activity of the sector as a whole, is expected to be higher in 2007 and 2008 than in previous years.
Agriculture's net-value added will rise to $12.2 billion in 2008, up from $9.4 billion in 2007. This is due to the rapid growth in the value of agricultural production, as improved prices in the crop sector will more than offset high costs of production and lower receipts for red meat producers.
Figure 18
This is a vertical bar graph entitled: "Value-added in Agriculture 1991 to 2008"
Note: 2008 figures are forecasts.
Source: Statistics Canada and AAFC Calculations
The vertical bars represent the value added in agriculture which measures the economic activity of the sector as a whole.
The vertical (y) axis measures income as expressed in billions of dollars; moving from bottom to top, from 0 billion to 14 billion dollars.
The horizontal (x) axis is a measurement of time in years; moving from left to right, beginning with 1991 and ending in 2007.
Approximate value-added results are as follows:
1991: 6.9 billion dollars, 1992: 7.2 billion dollars, 1993: 8.3 billion dollars, 1994: 8.3 billion dollars, 1995: 8.5 billion dollars, 1996: 9.5 billion dollars, 1997: 7.5 billion dollars, 1998: 8.1 billion dollars, 1999: 8.8 billion dollars, 2000: 9.5 billion dollars, 2001: 10 billion dollars, 2002: 8.8 billion dollars, 2003: 10.3 billion dollars, 2004: 11.4 billion dollars, 2005: 10 billion dollars, 2006: 8.2 billion dollars, 2007: 9.4 billion dollars, 2008: 12.2 billion dollars (forecasted)
End of description for Figure 18. Returning to text.
Families on smaller farms are more dependent on non-farm income.
For smaller farms, non-farm income along with program payments, are enough to offset negative and low net market income.
Even large farms rely to some extent on non-farm income.
Figure 19
This is a vertical bar graph entitled: "Average Income of Farm Families by Source of Income 2008"
Note: 2008 figures are forecasts. Net market income does not include CCA.
Source: Statistics Canada and AAFC calculations
This vertical bar graph measures the average income of family farms by farm revenue class (representative of farm size). There are five vertical bars, by farm revenue class, measuring the total of the following sources of income: non-farm income; program payments; and net market income.
The vertical (y) axis measures the average income expressed in thousands of dollars; moving from bottom to top, zero to 500,000 thousand dollars.
The horizontal (x) axis is divided into five categories, by farm revenue class; moving from left to right, beginning with the smallest farms and ending with the largest farm size.
The results for the average income of farm families by source of income by farm revenue class:
Farm size 10, 000 thousand dollars to 99,999 thousand dollars: Net Market Income minus 2.7 thousand dollars, Program Payments 4.4 thousand dollars, Non-farm Income 56.7 thousand dollars
Farm size: 100 000 thousand dollars to 249 000 thousand dollars: Net Market Income 12.6 thousand dollars, Program Payments 16.6 thousand dollars, Non-farm Income 43.8 thousand dollars
Farm size: 250 000 thousand dollars to 499,999 thousand dollars: Net Market Income 45.3 thousand dollars, Program Payments 30.5 thousand dollars, Non-farm Income 38.6 thousand dollars
Farm size: 500,000 to 999,999 thousand dollars: Net Market Income 86.9 thousand dollars, Program Payments 52 thousand dollars, Non-farm Income 34.8 thousand dollars
Farm size: 1 million dollars and over: Net Market Income 178.3 thousand dollars, Program Payments 146 thousand dollars, Non-farm Income 63.6 thousand dollars
End of description for Figure 19. Returning to text.
Productivity growth in agriculture has slowed in recent years, while that in FBT processing has increased relative to total manufacturing.
Total factor productivity growth in agriculture, which measures the growth in output per unit of inputs, decreased from average annual rates of 1.5% in 1988 to 1996 to 0.9% in 1997 to 2004. It has consistently been lower than in the U.S.
Productivity growth in FBT processing has been low relative to total manufacturing, but increased in recent years faster than in the U.S.
Figure 20
This is a vertical bar graph entitled: "Comparison of Total Factor Productivity Growth in Primary Agriculture: Canada versus the U.S. 1988 to 2004"
Source: Statistics Canada and U.S. Department of Agriculture (Economic Research Service)
Note: Profit margin ratio at the industry level is calculated as operating profits divided by total operating revenues. Operating profit is the net result of the principal business activities of a firm. It is calculated before taking into account interest expense, investment income, non-recurring losses from the write-down of assets, gains or losses realized on the disposal of assets, and income tax expense. This ratio indicates management's ability to generate earnings from the principal business activities of a firm.
The graph compares the total factor productivity growth between Canada and the U.S. during three periods.
The vertical (y) axis measures the total factor productivity growth in agriculture, which is a measure of the growth in output per unit of inputs. The axis moves from bottom to top; beginning at zero percent and ending at 2.5 percent.
The horizontal (x) axis measures 3 time periods; moving from left to right, 1988 to 2004, 1988 to 1996, and 1997 to 2004.
The results of the comparisons are as follows, in approximate percentages.
1988 to 2004 All Period Average: Canada 1.2 percent, U.S. 1.9 percent
1988 to 1996 Sub-period Average: Canada 1.5 percent, U.S. 1.9 percent
1997 to 2004 Sub-period Average: Canada 0.85 percent, U.S. 2.0 percent
End of description for Figure 20. Returning to text.
Productivity improvements occur as a result of R&D investments and innovation.
In primary agriculture, public spending on R&D has fallen both in absolute terms and as a share of gross farm receipts, and relative to Australia and the U.S.
Private R&D spending on FBT processing, which is lower than in total manufacturing, has stabilized after having increased in 2004.
Figure 21
This is a vertical bar graph entitled: "Public Research and Development (R&D) Support to the Agriculture and Agri-Food Sector 1986 to 2007".
Source: OECD, Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: At a Glance, 2008
This vertical bar graph compares the share public Research and Development support to the agriculture and agri-food sector in relation to gross farm receipts of three countries: Canada, Australia, and the U.S.
The vertical (y) axis is expressed as a percentage of shares of gross farm receipts; moving from bottom to top, from zero percent to 1.8 percent.
The horizontal (x) axis represents four consecutive fiscal periods; moving from left to right beginning in 1986 and ending in 2007.
The results from the four periods are as follows:
Period 1986 to 1995: Canada 1.6 percent, Australia 0.67 percent, U.S. 0.72 percent
Period 1996 to 2005: Canada 1.3 percent, Australia 1.2 percent, U.S. 0.75 percent
Period 2006: Canada 1.2 percent, Australia 1.6 percent, U.S. 0.64 percent
Period 2007: Canada 1.2 percent, Australia 1.4 percent, U.S. 0.71 percent
End of description for Figure 21. Returning to text.
Canada is endowed with a relative abundance of arable land and water.
Canada's rank as second in the world for the availability of arable land per person explains our status as a large producer and exporter of agricultural products. Canada's share of land suitable for agricultural production is only a small percentage (5%) of the total.
Figure 22
This is a table entitled: "Arable Land in Canada Relative to Other Countries 2005"
Source: United Nations Demographic Yearbook 2005, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
This table compares the availability of arable land per person in Canada relative to other countries. The table results are read horizontally by rows. The rows for this table are 10 countries listed in order relative to their ranking based on hectares per capita.
The table is divided into five columns, reading left to right: Column 1: Arable Land (expressed in millions of hectares), Column 2: percentage of world's arable land, Column 3: population (expressed in millions of people), Column 4: hectares of land per person, and Column 5: Rank among countries listed.
The results for the table are as follows, beginning with the first row in descending order of rank:
Australia: Column 1: 49.742 million hectares of arable land, Column 2: 3.2 percent of world's arable land, Column 3: population 20 million, Column 4: 2.49 hectares of land per person, Column 5: first rank
Canada: Column 1: 52.11 million hectares of arable land, Column 2: 3.3 percent of world's arable land, Column 3: population 32 million, Column 4: 1.63 hectares of land per person, Column 5: second rank
Russian Federation: Column 1: 123.581 million hectares of arable land, Column 2: 7.9 percent of world's arable land, Column 3: population 143 million, Column 4: 0.86 hectares of land per person, Column 5: third rank
Ukraine: Column 1: 33.353 million hectares of arable land, Column 2: 2.1 percent of world's arable land, Column 3: population of 47million, Column 4: 0.71 hectares of land per person, Column 5: fourth rank
U.S.: Column 1: 177.178 million hectares of arable land, Column 2: 11.3 percent of world's arable land, Column 3: population 296 million, Column 4: 0.60 hectares of land per person, Column 5: fifth rank
Brazil: Column 1: 66.6 million hectares of arable land, Column 2: 4.3 percent of world's arable land, Column 3: population 184 million, Column 4: 0.36 hectares of land per person, Column 5: sixth rank
Nigeria: Column 1: 35 million hectares of arable land, Column 2: 2.2 percent of world's arable land, Column 3: population 134 million, Column 4: 0.26 hectares of land per person, Column 5: seventh rank
Indonesia: Column 1: 36.6 million hectares of arable land, Column 2: 2.3 percent of world's arable land, Column 3: population 220 million, Column 4: 0.17 hectares of land per person, Column 5: eighth rank
India: Column 1: 169.65 million hectares of arable land, Column 2: 10.9 percent of world's arable land, Column 3: population 1.1 billion, Column 4: 0.15 hectares of land per person, Column 5: ninth rank
China: Column 1: 156.327 million hectares of arable land, Column 2: 10.0 percent of world's arable land, Column 3: population 1.3 billion, Column 4: 0.12 hectares of land per person, Column 5: tenth rank
End of description for Figure 22. Returning to text.
In Canada, agriculture uses a relatively small share of its abundant renewable water resources for irrigation and livestock.
In Canada, only 0.18% of the country's total renewable water resources were used for agriculture. This compares with India where 30% of total renewable water resources are for agricultural use.
Figure 23
This is a horizontal bar graph entitled: "Agricultural Water Withdrawal as a Percentage of Total Renewable Resources in Selected Countries 1998 to 2002 Average"
Source: Calculated from AQUASTAT database of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
This graph measures agriculture water withdrawal as a percentage of total renewable water resources for 13 countries.
The vertical (y) axis is divided into thirteen points representing the selected countries.
The horizontal (x) axis measures water withdrawal as expressed as a percentage of total renewable water resources; moving from left to right, from zero percent and ending at 35 percent.
Beginning at the bottom of the graph, the results for water withdrawal for agricultural use as a percentage of total renewable water resources by country:
India: 30 percent, Mexico: 17 percent, China: 15 percent, U.S.: 6 percent, Germany: 5.5 percent, Australia: 4 percent, Indonesia: 3.5 percent, Argentina: 3.5 percent, France: 2.5, Brazil: 1 percent, Russia: 1 percent, New Zealand: 1 percent, Canada: 0.18 percent
End of description for Figure 23. Returning to text.
Canadian farmers are adopting environmentally-friendly best management practices which are sustainable.
Canadian farmers are increasingly adopting management practices to farm with environmental concerns in mind by conserving the soil, protecting water quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through best management practices. Increased no-till practices are an example of a practice which leads to reduced fuel and fertilizer costs while helping conserve soils.
Figure 24
This is a vertical bar graph entitled: "Tillage Practices by Region 2001 and 2006"
Source: Census of Agriculture 2006
This vertical bar graph measures the percentage of three types of soil tillage employed by farmers across five regions in 2001 and 2006. The five regions, moving from left to right are: British Columbia, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic region.
The vertical (y) axis measures the percentage of each type of soil tillage used. The measurement, moving from bottom to top, starts at 0 percent and ends at 100 percent. The vertical bars measures three types of tillage practices: no-tillage, moderate tillage, and conventional tillage.
The horizontal (x) axis measures two periods for each region; moving from left to right, years 2001 and 2006. There are ten vertical bars along this axis, two for each region.
The approximate results for each region are as follows:
British Columbia:
2001 results: no tillage 14 percent, moderate tillage 21 percent, conventional tillage 65 percent
2006 results: no tillage 19 percent, moderate tillage 26 percent, conventional tillage 55 percent
Prairies:
2001 results: no tillage 31 percent, moderate tillage 32 percent, conventional tillage 37 percent
2006 results: no tillage 50 percent, moderate tillage 26 percent, conventional tillage 24 percent
Ontario:
2001 results: no tillage 26 percent, moderate tillage 22 percent, conventional tillage 52 percent
2006 results: no tillage 31 percent, moderate tillage 24 percent, conventional tillage 45 percent
Quebec:
2001 results: no tillage 4 percent, moderate tillage 18 percent, conventional tillage 78 percent
2006 results: no tillage 10 percent, moderate tillage 28 percent, conventional tillage 62 percent
Atlantic:
2001 results: no tillage 3 percent, moderate tillage 11 percent, conventional tillage 86 percent
2006 results: no tillage 6 percent, moderate tillage 12 percent, conventional tillage 82 percent
End of description for Figure 24. Returning to text.
Government expenditures in support of the agriculture and agri-food sector have grown over time, but declined as a share of GDP.
Federal and provincial government expenditures in support of the agriculture and agri-food sector increased to $8.1 billion for the 2007-08 fiscal year, up slightly from the previous year. As a share of GDP, however, they have fallen to under 40%, the lowest share in two decades.
Figure 25
This is an area chart entitled: "Government Expenditures in Support of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Sector through 1985 to 2008 Fiscal Years"
Source: AAFC
Note: 2007 to 2008 figures are forecasted.
This area chart measures the total of both federal and provincial government expenditures in support of the agricultural sector.
The vertical (y) axis is total billion dollars for both government expenditures; moving from bottom to top, beginning at 0 billion dollars and ending at 10 billion dollars.
The horizontal (x) axis measures fiscal periods in years. Moving from left to right; beginning with the fiscal period 1985 to 1986 and ending with the fiscal period 2007 to 2008.
The trend in federal and provincial expenditures:
1985 to 1986: Federal expenditures 2.6 billion dollars, provincial expenditures 2.2 billion dollars.
Over the next two fiscal periods government expenditures gradually increased.
1987 to 1988: Federal expenditures 4.6 billion dollars, provincial expenditures 2.3 billion dollars
Over the following three fiscal periods government expenditures decreased.
1990 to 1991: Federal expenditures 3.8 billion dollars, provincial expenditures 2.8 billion dollars
A sharp increase in government expenditures occurred for the next fiscal period.
1991 to 1992: Federal expenditures 6.1 billion dollars, provincial expenditures 3.0 billion dollars.
Over the next seven fiscal periods there was gradual decrease in government expenditures, to a new low in expenditures.
1998 to 1999: Federal expenditures 2.2 billion dollars, provincial expenditures 2.1 billion dollars.
Over the next nine fiscal periods government expenditures increased.
2006 to 2007: Federal expenditures 4.6 billion dollars, provincial expenditures 3.2 billion dollars.
The forecast for the fiscal period 2007 to 2008 predicted an increase in expenditures.
2007 to 2008: Forecasted federal expenditures 4.8 billion dollars, forecasted provincial expenditures 3.3 billion dollars.
End of description for Figure 25. Returning to text.
Program payments make up the largest portion of federal government support, accounting for 50% of the total in 2007-08. Research and inspection spending was the second largest category at 24% of the total.
Figure 26
This is a horizontal bar graph entitled: "Federal Government Expenditures in Support of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Sector by Major Category 2007 to 2008 Fiscal Year"
Source: AAFC
Note: 2007 to 2008 figures are forecast.
This graph measures forecasted federal government expenditures in support of the agriculture sector by major category for the fiscal period 2007 to 2008.
The vertical (y) axis is divided into six points representing the six major categories.
The horizontal (x) axis measures federal government expenditures in billions of dollars; moving from left to right, from the zero billion dollars and ending at 3.0 billion dollars.
The approximate results for each major category are as follows:
Beginning at the bottom of the graph:
Others: 0.4 billion dollars, Environment: 0.24 billion dollars, Rural and Marketing Development: 0.27 billion dollars, Operating and Capital: 0.44 billion dollars, Research and Inspection: 1.2 billion dollars, Program Payments: 2.5 billion dollars
End of description for Figure 26. Returning to text.
Based on the OECD estimates of Producer Subsidy Equivalents (PSE), support to Canadian producers as a share of gross farm receipts fell from 20% in 2006 to 18% in 2007, primarily due to an increase in farm receipts and a decrease in market price sup-port due to higher world commodity prices. This compares with the EU and the U.S., where the PSE was 26% and 10% respectively, in 2007.
Figure 27
This is a multiple line graph entitled: "Producer Support Estimates (PSE), Selected Countries 1986 to 2007"
Source: OECD, Trade and Agriculture Directorate, Producer and Consumer Support Estimates, OECD Database 1986 to 2007
This multiple line graph compares the Producer Support Estimates (PSE) between three countries; Canada, the European Union (EU), and the U.S., from 1986 to 2006.
The vertical (y) axis is a measure of PSE as a percentage of gross farm receipts; moving from bottom to top, from zero percent to 50 percent.
The horizontal (x) axis measures years; moving from left to right, starting at 1986 and ending at 2007.
The overall trends of PSE as a percentage of gross farm receipts by country:
Canada:
In 1986 Canada's PSE was 38 percent. From 1986 to 1997, the PSE experienced some fluctuations and continued on a downward trend. In 1997 the PSE was 14 percent. In 1999 the PSE increased to 17 percent and continued to increase to 25 percent in 2003. From 2003 to 2007, the PSE decreased. In 2007 the PSE was 18 percent.
European Union:
In 1986 the European Union's PSE was 42 percent. From 1986 to 1997, the PSE experienced some fluctuations and continued on a downward trend. In 1996 the PSE was 32 percent. In 1997 the PSE increased to 33 percent and continued to increase to 39 percent in 1999. From 1999 to 2007, the PSE fluctuated slightly, and continued on a downward trend. In 2007 the PSE was 26 percent.
U.S.:
In 1986 the U.S's PSE was 24 percent. From 1986 to 1995, the PSE experienced some fluctuations and continued on a downward trend. In 1995 the PSE was 10 percent. In 1996 the PSE increased to 13 percent and continued to increase to 26 percent in 1999. From 1999 to 2007, the PSE fluctuated slightly, and continued on a downward trend. In 2007 the PSE was 10 percent.
End of description for Figure 27. Returning to text.
Publication: 10770E - ISSN: 1708-4164 - ISBN: 978-1-100-10925-1 - Catalogue: A38-1/1-2008E-PDF - Project: 08-028-r
Contact Information
To request a copy of this publication, please e-mail: Econ.Info@agr.gc.ca.
